Ken Burns: The War: talks about the parallels between Iraq and WWII
By John Amato Saturday Sep 22, 2007 4:05pm
His new documentary on World War II starts tonight on PBS: "The War." He talked about the similarities between both wars and tried to break a long time myth.
Burns: Every thing sort of becomes draped in this bloodless gallant myth and what I think we have to remember is this is the worst war, it's responsible for the deaths of 60 million people. We understand why people call it the good war because the country was more or less united, our causes were unambiguous. We didn't debate it every night---whether we should be in or whether we shouldn't...
As the decades have come, as we've removed ourselves from it, we've begun to see it as a safe black and white war. It's exactly what's happening on the streets of Baghdad. It was horrible and these young men had experiences common to all wars. I was scared, I was bored, I was hot, I was cold, my officers didn't know what they were doing. I didn't have the right equipment. I saw bad things, I did bad things. I lost good friends.---Now we have a separate military class that suffers its losses apart; alone from the rest of us. We are disconnected. We weren't asked to do anything after 9/11
Download | play 
Download | play
This looks like a must see series.
Login or Register to post comments.
8)
Happy Sunday!
america loves their thirst for blood....if they don't like their current war they glorify a past one.
what else would you expect from a fascist rogue state but the need for more death and destruction?
Uh .. We were asked to kick ass ... "shop"... and "not entertain wild conspiracy theories on the internets"
Maybe just me, but I watch a lot of PBS and they have been promoting and over hyping this show for at least 3 months and I'm so sick of it, I can say the last thing I'm going to watch is this Doc, no matter how good it is.
He seems to be saying WW2 is really no different from Iraq. All wars are the same, only now the US has a large, well-funded standing army to fight them. The public's anti-war sentiments are a luxury that arise from a lack of common sacrifice in a time of war.
Utter bullshit.
This will be used as a rationalization for Iraq, and for the false ideas that Saddam = Hitler, Bush = Churchill, and the Democrats = Neville Chamberlain.
Talk about revisionism! Here's what PBS Hosanna Burns said:
"We understand why people call it the good war because the country was more or less united, our causes were unambiguous. We didn’t debate it every night—whether we should be in or whether we shouldn’t…"
'We' didn't debate it every night? There was no isolationist party,a neat half of the people saying 'let the troublesome Europeans sort out their eternal squabbles themselves? Roosevelt didn't lie to the American people about his war aims? Churchill and his gang didn't need to conspire, to 'drag' the reluctant Yankees into the fray? The position and deposition of the Japanese fleet steaming toward Pearl Harbor wasn't known to the Deciders at the War Department?
Prior to Pearl, Roosevelt didn't send four cruisers to sashay about, just off the coast of the Japanese home islands, in a sacrificial goat operation? Really? That didn't happen, Ken?
Lucky Lindy (Charles Lindberg, now reviled along with Henry Ford as a 'fascist' of course) didn't stump tirelessly in an attempt to keep the USA out of foreign wars?
Roosevelt didn't embargo oil shipments to Japan, thereby virtually forcing the Army-ruled government of Nippon into a desperate war against the Western invader/occupier?
Why exactly was it okay for the Dutch, French, British, and U.S. Marines to invade various island peoples, and put lots of them to death (Moros=Taliban), but Tojo's invasions were demonized?
It always boils down to the same thing. 'Their' bastards are bad, 'our' bastards (like Saddam Hussein when he played ball by warring against Iran) are good.
Physically, Ken Burns is beginning to look more and more like Gerald "Magic Bullet" Posner. Gives me the willies, that does.
wow! somebody at fox is going to be in trouble for booking someone so smart and then letting him talk. oops.
I cannot believe that boob asked him, "Why history?" I know FOX is as awful as it's ever been, but... oh... just shoot me.
"Why so much focus on history??" - Chris Wallace asks..
Holy shit they are even dumber then I thought...
For fucks sake... History is one of the most important subjects we can discuss...
No wonder Idiocracy is our future.
I sort of lost interest in Ken Burns' work after he did Baseball: "A Requiem for the National Sport."
Obviously, that's a joke, but it just seemed like he used exactly the same sort of slow, mournful style and music for Baseball as The Civil War, which put me off hugely.
That said, I'm glad SOMEBODY is pointing this out--war is bad. Doesn't matter which side you're on, or what it's over, war is bad. If it happens, something has gone horribly wrong along the line.
I watched Letters From Iwo Jima last night, and it really brought that into focus--sure we have our fancy flag-raising memorial, but functionally, it was a battle in which 20,000 young Japanese men died defending a worthless chunk of rock for a lost cause because a bunch of militaristic leaders had, a decade earlier, decided that Japan should run Asia whatever the cost, and 6000 young American men died trying to capture a worthless chunk of rock in a war that was already mostly won because some higher-up decided it should be taken.
It wasn't "glorious," it wasn't "valiant," it was vicious, miserable, and largely pointless. My father was a marine in WWII, so I grew up with stories of what it was like in the Pacific instead of the John Wayne myth--endless seasickness, sleeping in holes, and standing on the deck of a ship staring down a kamikaze suicide bomber hoping that the gunners shoot it down before it hits you.
There is no "Good War". There are wars that, come a certain point in time, are essentially unavoidable, but by definition the act of sending large numbers of young people to die over a political argument is Bad.
Here's hoping Ken Burns does something to brush back a little more of the myth.
I'm watching Flags of Our Fathers tonight for the other perspective on the same event.
Westclox @ 6:
I was thinking he looks like Paul McCartney circa 1962, with some added facial hair to make him look older.
Ken Burns specializes is populist revisionist garbage. He did it with the Civil War as well. His documentaries remind me of a Bing Crosby Bob Hope road movie.
If this is as screwed up as his jazz documentary, I'll pass...
Can i wax poetic? >>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiE1d96oe3w !!!!!!!
Burns is right to say that all war is Hell, but that's about the only parallel between Iraq and WWII... otherwise the two can not be any more further apart.
BTW, if you want to look at a more unflattering view of WWII, read The Good War by Studs Turkel.
Some would argue that WWII was a good war because each element of the overall war had closure - in Europe, the Pacific etc. I would argue we are fighting WWII to this day. Every conflict from Korea to the cold war to Vietnam to the wars in SW asia to the inevitable conflicts in the Orient - Korea and China - are continuations of WWII. In fact, some can be traced back to WWI.
Doesnt look like Burns gets it as he appears to be dealing with WWII atomically - as if it were in isolation of what preceded and followed it. (That is speculation as I only have promo's and interviews at this point to go on).
Iraq is like WWII. For instance ...
Remember FDR strutting around on the beaches of Normandy with a giant "Mission Accomplished" banner?
Remember MacArthur vowing to return the Philipines -- and then blowing the whole thing off to spend time on his ranch?
Remember when congress approved the president's plan to invade Mexico?
The similarities are downright eerie.
Lemme try that again!!! Click here instead.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJTXmBuRR6w
Joementum @ 17:
I would like to say adults were in charge (compared to Bush) - but then, they were still incapable of behaving themselves. We still havent entirely mastered the fine art of communications, cooperation and collaboration. We are still very much in a them or us mindset sadly.
The senate (illegally) gave Bush a gun and warned him to be responsible with it - okay okay he said impatiently as he began thinking about who he would shoot first.
Westclox @ 6:
He looks more like Dave Barry to me, before he grew the facial thingy.
And, Ken Burns IMHO is like Walt Disney. Great on fantasy, short on reality.
Strausinfo @ 18:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=givbP4-x7UY
I do remember as a youth being told by my parents stories about WW2; the callous indifference at home towards what our soldiers were enduring, people being told to go out and spend their money willy-nilly while constantly searching for the next distraction from what was going on beyond our borders, the very nebulous reasoning behind it all.
I really want people to stop talking about WW2. It has been used by too many to justify all these other shitty wars. Our involvement in WW2 was a good thing, but that doesn't excuse all the really bad things done after 1945.
For Americans to get a true perspective of what war and its aftermath are really like, it would be instructive for them to rent or buy the shattering 1974 Oscar-winning documentary Hearts and Minds, which focused on the toll, both physically and psychologically, that the Vietnam War had on its victims, Vietnamese as well as American. It features conservative as well as liberal voices, such as former National Security adviser Walt Rostow stubbornly believing that the U.S. was right to invade Vietnam. A film that is still poignantly relevant more than thirty years after its release.
rduke @ 9:
Because people like Wallace think Econ 101 is their most important subject.
This romanticization of WW2 and the so-called greatest generation is disgusting. Glorifying war and national naivete. Get ready for hour after hour of "dad never talked about the war" baloney that's meant to make us look like babies for despising meaningless death and destruction and speaking out about it. World War 2 lasted about 4 years. Bush's occupation of Iraq, four years in, is just beginning it's reign of terror. He's already told us there'll be no sailors kissing nurses in Times Square. Shame on all who glorify war.
Reminds me of MIKE GRAVEL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tf9wAo_i4K0
when are we going to wakeup and recognize this man as a National Hero?
joshdavis @ 24:
...and yet people like Wallace would flunk an Econ 101 class. Supply side economics doesn't bail you out of every depression... especially when said economy collapsed because it was flooded with a surplus of utter shit (ie: consumer products).
Burns is right about the black and white nature of WW2 compared to the recent wars we've fought. That is why they love to bring up WW2 all the time, to try to rub off that essence from WW2 onto our current war of aggression and occupation.
Weren't the conservatives the ones who didn't want the US involved in WW2? Yet now they claim it as their war. We've always been at war with Eastasia.
'Civil War' was Brady and more Brady.
'Baseball' was New York and Boston and more New York and Boston.
'Jazz' did have Hot 5 and 7 and BIX so it was watchable.
'WWII' will be World At War clips but some home movies which should be good. I'll watch.
joshdavis @ 24:
Which does not mean they got even close to pass that class either.
These shills are used to create their own reality, documented history is out of the realm of their control/manipulation, ergo they have no use for it. They however care deeply about myth, which they can bend and manipulate to suit their own interests as they seem fit, contradicting themselves in an almost daily basis. But since it is not reflected in the historical record, it is as if it never happened...
What an ass clown!
Ken Burns has zero credibility with me after his series on Jazz which was nothing but
a racist polemic.
I hate to ignore someones actual dialogue and focus on their appearance, but... is his hair supposed to be real?
raker @ 25:
1945 - 1939 = 6 years. It is called "world" war because there were a lot of countries other than the US involved.
What no body is pointing out is that WWII showed Americans business that they could make shitloads of money from war, thus there hasn't literally been a decade since WWII in which the US was not involved in some sort of major conflict. Korea, Vietnam, the Cold War, Granada, Panama, Iraq I, Iraq II, Afghanistan, the war on drugs, the war on terror, etc, etc, etc. WW II also showed that America could impose its economic interest at gun point, to this day everyone knows that the US can never repay the debt it has contracted. In some sense the US acts more like a mafia than anything else, get in debt that you know you can never pay but don't give a shit because you got the big guns... and what are your debtors going to do about it?
Heck nowadays Bush can nominate people for "czar" positions, and the irony of that name just flies at supersonic speeds over the heads of most Americans.
Annoyed Canuck @ 11:
I was thinking Moe Howard if you shave the beard and mustache.
Lone Rogue @ 33:
He looks like a Mii, for those who play Wii :-)
I think that Mr. Burns was rather rude to marginalize the Latino and Native American contributions to the war effort. Initially he included no interviews with either group, despite roughly 500,000 Latino and 45,000 Native Americans men serving the country. It took a lot of complaining before he would even add a measly 30 minutes to the documentary that included the mentioned contributors.
Smack_dab @ 22:
Are you referring to the callous indifference that led to bond drives, victory gardens, blackouts, civil defense drills, bandage-rolling and knitting items for soldiers, civilians training as aircraft spotters, patriotic posters, and recycling of metal, cooking fat, and paper?
Which people were spending money willy-nilly when gas, food, and many other necessities were rationed?
Has this dude, Ken Burns, come out with a statement about how he feels about the Iraq WAr. Does he support "staying the course" or does he want to bring our soldiers home? Has he said how he feels about the legitimacy of the pre-emptive strike we made against this country?
Until I hear that, I am not that interested in his comparisons. This war was "largely about oil" Damn. wake up. Our country pre-emptively attacked another nation to steal their natural resources. We waste a lot of time pretending to debate it or compare it.
Doctor Who @ 34:
(cue 40s music): "December 7, 1941, a day that will live in infamy." Franklin Roosevelt.
1946 - 1941 = 4. It wasn't a world war until it involved the world beyond Europe. Makes no difference to the point that Bush is out to destroy the world and relishes that his "war" will be more like Orwell's than like FDR and Churchill's. Eternal. Venal. Evil.
Annoyed Canuck @ 5:
That's the way I'm seeing it too. Let's get over the soft crap and let's get to the damn truth.
rduke @ 3:
Basically... Shop and don't Think. That's these guys' idea of what it means to be American. Whoever still listens to Bush and his handlers are a sick bunch of sycophants.
Of course there are no "good" wars, but sometimes there are "necessary" wars, which WWII clearly was, unlike the present fiasco.
It’s exactly what’s happening on the streets of Baghdad.
Well, maybe there's parallels with Nazi-occupied France, but I don't think the Germans were bankrupting themselves at it.
Anthology @ 32:
Yes. "Whitebread" Burns has done it again. I really looked forward to that Jazz series. It sucked, basically.
When the generals of the US military get so pissed off that they try to assassinate Bush by setting off a bomb, then that will be another parallel to WWII.*
* A group of generals from the German army tried to kill Hitler in July, 1944.
I don't know why everyone is mad that Ken Burns is 'glorifying' WWII. I got the impression that he aimed to do the opposite. To me, the most intriguing part of the project is that the film does not include a single expert or historian who did not directly take part in the war. It is not about the history of WWII, nor the tactics, nor the machinery, but about human cost.
Ken Burns (and colleagues) afforded millions of Americans an insight into the vast stakes and bloody price exacted by a Civil War that very few had ever studied, much less understood. Lest we forget, his inclusion of slavery's paramount role as the war's abiding cause is still widely denounced by fantasists.
Burns point comparing the shared sacrifice of the WW2 generation versus today's volunteer Army is irrefutable.
George Marshall's stepson was killed by a German sniper in Italy. Harry Hopkins lost a son to a banzai charge in 1944. Joe Kennedy Jr. lost his life, and his brother John barely survived his boat being sliced by a Japanese destroyer. John Warner landed on Utah beach, and George W.H. Bush flew combat missions off a carrier. George McGovern, Tom Landry, and Jimmy Stewart piloted bombers. America fought that war as a united people, across the board.
By contrast, today's army is a breed apart. We have burdened them with a tragic mission, and can lay no honest claim to sharing that burden. Only by pointing to the expenditure of our national wealth can that argument be made; but, of course, that expenditure it also theirs. Shame would prevent me from ever citing it as a bona fide example of my own sacrifice to any veteran of the Big Lie war.
Burns is no war lover. Quite the contrary. Those who reflexively, stupidly, condemn him for the subject matter of his most recent documentary are fools. They would be wise to study the incidents and realities of the respective conflicts before mouthing off about his perceived shortcomings. All the while keeping in mind that human nature does not change.
When Ken Burns was interviewed by CNNs Carol Costello on the Situation Room he was talking about World War II being a "Necessary War" as opposed to being a "Good War" since there are no good wars. Of course Carol Costello's first question was:
COSTELLO: But in your investigation of war, when you look at World War II, when you look at the Iraq War, in your opinion, is the Iraq War a necessary war?
BURNS: In my own personal opinion, no, I don't think it is. And I think we were lied to about some of the reasons for going in. It remains to be seen what our obligation is in getting out.
That seemed to surprise Costello who compared George W. Bush to Alexander the Great when filling in for Anderson Cooper, November 26, 2004:
COSTELLO: Did you compare him to someone in the modern day?
(Oliver) STONE: No, because the world doesn't exist that way. In those days, men fought -- they did it with their own hands and with their eyes. They saw their enemy. He was a general who led from the front. He was wounded eight times. He never asked his men to do what he couldn't do.
COSTELLO: He sounds like a hard charging guy, though. I mean might you compare him to a modern day leaders, like perhaps President Bush, who is also known as a guy who gets it done?
CNN isn't really any better than Fox News.
Oh Burns, be careful what you wish for - he actually thinks support for the violence would rise if sacrifice for Operation Neo-con Fuckup was shared more equally around the nation. Wallace otoh, smelt it and backed himself and his precious repug kiddies away from shared sacrifice.
I've attempted to post a comment that may have been censored. Is that possible?
colin @ 47:
Agreed. And the last thing he said was "We need to know where we're going." How else to know where we are going, but by knowing where we came from? The soldiers from WWII are finally discussing what happened to them more than 60 years ago. It will take another 60 years for the soldiers who fought in Iraq to speak of their war. My husband has yet to speak of Viet Nam. Why do we keep making the same mistakes?
I've been censored for an innocuous comment? You're beyond lame. No more contributions for C&L from me.
[Thanks for the warning. FYI-It was the spam filter that caught you (software), not a human. Sheesh. Fairly paranoiac of you to jump to that conclusion-Sitemonitor]
For the record, Burnsy. I was sticking up for you in my censored post.
[Keep your blouse on. I'm getting it out of the spam filter now-Sitemonitor]
colin @ 47:
It's impossible to say yet whether Burns will do his subject justice.
But Burns isn't much of a historian. So far his films have been reasonably good factual accounts without economic/social context beyond meaningless motherhood statements about how jazz, baseball and the Union victory were good for America.
Will he go into how WW2 led to the replacement of the British Empire with a new American Empire? And how that empire, in the guise of anti-communism (now, anti-Islamism) was co-opted by the military-industrial complex for selfish, undemocratic ends? Does he have projects like 'Vietnam', 'The CIA', or 'Watergate' in him? Doubtful. These are all subjects for a different filmmaker. And you won't ever see them paid for by corporate sponsors on PBS.
How about trying to repost instead of crying out for a wahmbulence driver? (Assuming it isn't 10K long with a ten or more links using each other as reference.)
Oh.
If I were you, i doubt I'd bother. Sorry Charlie.
Here it is the long awaited film the people need to see... ;) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj1X52albSA
WW2 compares perfectly to the Iraq occupation. Germany invaded other nations, and the US invaded Iraq............
I can't wait to see the documentary. His docs on jazz and baseball were cool
"President Bush, who is also known as a guy who gets it done"
Yeah, getting half a million bucks to MoveOn.org was pretty nifty.
There a lot of supporters of this war who believe that people aren't behind this war because we haven't been asked to sacrifice for the war. Maybe they think we should have ration cards for gas and food. I'm not really sure what they mean. If people were asked to sacrifice anything for George Bush's war, the troops would be home by now. People won't sacrifice for a war they don't believe in.
A lot of lives were sacrificed through the draft during the Vietnam war. That certainly didn't pull people together behind that war because it wasn't a necessary war. It isn't common sacrifice that pulls people together, it's belief in a common cause. It's certainly unreasonable to expect people to unite behind a cause that was largely manufactured through lies and deception.
Needless to say, Ken Burns lost me when told Carol Costello:
Just what is it he thinks we should sacrifice? Sheep? Goats?
hE cALlED mE AND SAID IF [i] Post thIs Vid he's not gonna talk to me :( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raScUcGpWc8
Carmikl @ 62:
Perhaps another 60 Million. Lot of wealth got redistributed to fewer hands can create the illusion of becoming "richer"
If I'm not mistaken, Burns basically repeated the first line (in this clip around 2:20). But then he talks about how now there's a disconnect. Soldiers kill or get killed (as before). Difference now is civilian's get to stay on the sidelines.
So who is becoming richer in the Iraq war?
That second line you quoted Burns saying. I'm hoping that was just a bit of misstatement by Burns.
burns does make great long form docs....but his point here is dead wrong
sure, all wars are hell, and alot of screwups occur, but germany and japan formally declared war on the US....
there is no myth to be busted
ww2 was indeed the last great war
or maybe ken wouldve like a europe contolled by the nazis and an asia controlled by impeialist japan
I think what Ken Burns missed is that people did unite after 911. They were behind our actions in Afghanistan. We did what we could for the victims of the attack, but that wasn't common sacrifice, that was belief in a common cause.
But the Bush administration exploited that common bond to get us an unnecessary war for his own reasons and that broke the common bond and betrayed our trust. Bush knew is he asked for us to sacrifice anything he would lose support so he didn't. That's why there's no draft. That's why we have huge deficits. Bush knows that if his war starts encroaching on peoples everyday lives he would lose support, so his approach has been, "You folks just get on with your lives and I'll take care of the war" He really resents it when other folks wanna get involved in his war.
I loved Burns' Civil War but this latest thing looks like the typical America-centric stuff that's usually shown on The History Channel. I wonder how much mention there will be of the Soviet price paid for their part in taking down the Wehrmacht and Hitler. Not much I bet.
some of you on this thread miss the point of what made ww2 the last good war...it wasnt just the war
citizens were asked to sacrifice....for real
food rations...gas rations...clothing rations....the vast majority of men joining up or being drafted
and there was no poliical solution to this war....the brits tried that....
and please dont forget the holocaust....both in europe and asia....or havent you heard of the japanese attrocities commited against the chinese and the koreans
few americans would have had to die assualting iwo jima , and the same for pelalu islands both were a waste of american lives , the garrison at iwo were doomed because the navys blocade could have starved them without all the violence, pelalu was in the same boat , but the asshole general rupurtus at pelalu said while they were there might as well have marines killed to add to the marine corps lauralls, maby its because i lived thru this period of time i find this documentary boreing!
Carmikl @ 66:
That last line hit me like a ton of bricks. You've stated a fact that should be used like a sledgehammer by the Dems in congress everytime one of their resolutions gets stonewalled, if they still give a damn.
Thing Fish @ 64:
I think you're referring to this Line:
But he's contrasting World War II with Iraq, leaving out Vietnam. If he included Vietnam when there was still a draft, he would have to change his whole hypothesis, because we didn't have a separate military class then, and just about everyone knew someone who died in Vietnam. That shared loss did not united the people because the people did not believe it was a necessary war. Shared sacrifice doesn't necessarily unite the people. In the case of Vietnam, the common cause became to end the war.
Carmikl @ 71:
and in three yrs of terrible fighting in korea the american people never sacrificed shit! every body was home seeing who they could screw out of a parking space!
[...] Ken Burns: The War: talks about the parallels between Iraq and WWII Burns: Every thing sort of becomes draped in this bloodless gallant myth and what I think we have to remember is this is the worst war, it?s responsible for the deaths of 60 million people. We understand why people call it the good war … [ Digg RSS News Search for ken burns the war ] [...]
Fox no doubt was happy to have Burns on, they love hyping the mythology of WWII more than anyone. I look foreward to seeing this series tonight (one hour to go), I have always liked Ken Burns series. I have the Civil War and Jazz on tape so I have high hopes for this. Personally I'm more into the first world war than the second, that was the war that set the tone for the entire twentieth century (and I see certain parralels in Bushes character with that of Kaiser Willhelm II, childish, petulant, wanted everything his way alone, but the Kaiser was a better statesman than Bush). I am of the opinion that Americans in general, and conservatives in particular, tend to think of WWII in overly romantic ideas, the myth of the good war. I chalk it up to the astounding success of the war, people tend to forget what war truly is and why it should be avoided. Such ideas cannot be credited to WWI, it was not as successful nor did it have as clean a resolution, indeed the so called peace forged at the end led almost directly to WWII. I think WWII is celebrated a little to much, but if people can learn from the lesons of history I'm all for that.
I'll be recording this. I've seen some good clips, and heard a rave review. An important subject.
noticed burns never mentioned bug out doug at corregador
If you think Burns is going to anger his corporate sponsors, you're just silly.
Iraq is a LOT like Vietnam, and only like WWII in the inherent evil of violence, the boredom/horror of the soldier, and the useless screams of civilians.
Iraq, Vietnam:
• UNDECLARED WARS. Illegal, unconstitutional, wrong.
• ESCALATED BY CORRUPT PRESIDENTS WITH PROFIT-MOTIVES. LBJ's entire career was the product of Halliburton. His backers made billions on Vietnam, and the SAME backers are making hundreds of billions in Iraq.
• ESCALATED OVER LIES. Gulf of Tonkin, and ....
• BLAMED ON PROTEST MOVEMENTS, in which 'hippies' oppose the illegal war, and the authorities condemn them for being hippies, and protesters are defamed for seeing the obvious truth, which the press refuses to discuss.
• FALSE GEOPOLITICAL PURPOSES HIDDEN FROM PUBLIC. OK, WWII had a host of those, any war does, but nothing on the scale of Bushco's plans for a profitable multi-state ME genocide, on trumped up analysis of questionable facts.
• PROTESTERS ARE BRAVE, WAR SUPPORTERS ARE COWARDS.
• WAR SUPPORTERS WILL NOT FIGHT.
Carmikl @ 71:
Sorry, no, wasn't clear that I was referring to the "And that's [shared sacrifice] the secret" from his di